Breeder-based immigration policy is a bad idea

So Obama is about to announce the executive action on immigration, in which millions of illegals will be allowed to stay in the country because they shat loaves here. The childless ones, who probably contribute more to the economy and definitely don't use near as much (if any) welfare, can fuck off and be deported, I guess.

They really are "anchor babies" now.

There is an old law on the books from slavery times that pertains to this, it's one that pretty much says that children of slaves born here are considered 'American citizens.' I can't remember the exact name of it, but this is the law that gives the loophole for these 'anchor babies.' It's why if you hear tales of preggo illegal immigrants bellying up to the border when they are ready to pop, this is why. Abolish this law, and you close that loophole.

What really bothers me about Obama doing this, is that our country can't sustain this kind of thing forever. Many of them resort to illicit practices to come over, and too many use stolen or fake IDs and Social Security numbers to get jobs, and what galls me is that many of the pro-immigrant groups (often Hispanic) decry any effort to deport them. Why are they supporting this kind of behavior instead of condemning it? This shows a kind of disdain for their adopted country and willingness to break the rules, just because people who look like you show up on the doorstep.

Plus, we already have way too much people in this country. Do we really need to import more, especially with the the degree of planet-harming consumption and resource use that goes on? We were doing good when the numbers were at least starting to stabilize, but third world countries and Catholicism aren't exactly known for limiting infants. I dread seeing more houses, trash on the ground, plastic use, wasteful use of resources, and whatnot, because some bleeding heart politicians don't want to lay down the law.

I really hate immigration laws. Either you have to prove you are a boon to the economy, suffer horribly, or you have to fit within a narrow definition of family.

I won't go into detail on highly skilled migrants. At face value they're good for society and so it's rational to accept them. (Depression of wages and brain drain are counter arguments, but this isn't the type of immigration being discussed here. I also won't discuss asylum here as it's out of scope.)

Family reunification immigration places no value on the skills or attributes of the individual, and looks only at that person's relationship to a citizen or resident. What's good for the individual might not be best for society, but I guess we already accept this trade-off when we don't limit breeding, force people into careers which would most benefit society, and so on. So take it as a given that an individual's pursuit of happiness is allowed to take priority over what's best for society. But why, then, do only some types of relationships matter?

People talk about the cruelty of separating families, as if that were the only type of relationship, and as if there's always love within families. I find it unfair that the law only recognizes some relationships as legitimate, and that priority is given to relationships where the problem of separation could have been avoided over relationships where it could not have been.

If love is a reason to allow immigration, we should also accept the sponsoring of less immediate relatives (such as grandparents or cousins), all types of romantic relationships (homosexual, polyamorous), and close friendships. How can another person say that these are less important relationships than relationships between spouses, or between parents and children? If you want to measure love, I'm pretty sure a kind-hearted person feels more love for a friend than a narcissist feels for a spouse or child.

Then there's the question of how preventable the separation was. When two people from different countries love one another, there's nothing they could have done to prevent the separation. Yet they're required to prove their relationship and the sponsor must demonstrate an abiliity to financially support the other person. By contrast, if a couple immigrates to a country with birth-based citizenship and has a child there, the possibility of separation arises from their initial decision to immigrate. Yet despite the culpability of the parents in creating the situation, they neither have to prove their love for the child nor demonstrate an ability to support it.

I don't know what the right solution to immigration law is, given that as long as there are economic disparities there will always be more people trying to enter richer countries than those countries can accept. But surely there have to be better solutions than basing policy on the unfounded assumptions of the pronatalist lifescript, which claims that it's not possible to deeply love someone unrelated to you in a platonic way, and that love for a child is always superior to other forms of love.

Whether or not an amnesty is granted, people whose relationships fall outside of the lifescript are already disadvantaged by current immigration law.

yurble, this is a perfect example of what you're talking about: Obama immigration move expected to leave out millions of childless adults

(Reuters) - Most Friday nights, in the Denver suburb of Arvada, Ramon Madera invites his sister Angelica and her three children over to his home for dinner and games. It's a tradition that became all the more important after the children's father was deported back to Mexico about five years ago.

Lately, conversations on game night have taken an anxious turn: Madera himself was apprehended by immigration enforcement agents in September and is due in court for a deportation hearing next June.

Madera, 36, said that while he may be a father figure to Angelica's children, as a gay man who has no children of his own he is unlikely to benefit from the executive action President Barack Obama is expected to announce on Thursday night. His deportation hearing will probably go ahead as scheduled.

"I'm like the dad of the family," said Madera. "If they need money, they ask me. If they aren't sure if they should do something, they call me. For every thing, every opinion, they come to me."

Obama, seeking to give legal status to some of the more than 11 million immigrants without documents in the United States, is likely to focus on keeping nuclear families together by granting temporary relief from deportation to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

Their natalist glasses are so thick that they can't even see how their kneejerk favoritism toward parents harms kids.

FUCK, fuck, FUCK!

STOP FUCKING PANDERING TO THE FUCKING GOP!! That's the whole reason why he's doing this. The GOP is nothing but the KKK with an expanded repertoire. I am SO SICK of people pandering to these jackasses. Hopefully they'll all die before the 2016 elections. Here's to hoping.

All this will do is invite more people to come with hopes of being granted a free pass.

I have mentioned in another post how women were showing up with their kids in tow knowing that they would be taken care at taxpayer expense.

Wonder what Canada would do if I trotted my butt into their country and tried to live there as an illegal? No visa, no papers, no job, trying to eeek off their government? Nope.. wouldn't happen.

Hey... you in the USA. Try to go to any Canadian radio station website and 'listen live'....just try it. Our lovely government has blocked them all ( and I have one that I am head of their morning crew fan club) why? So, in return... Canada has blocked our stations. I know this is not like immigration... but it's funny how they restrict radio stations and let in illegals and ebola patients. Just sayin......

Quote
starlady
Wonder what Canada would do if I trotted my butt into their country and tried to live there as an illegal? No visa, no papers, no job, trying to eeek off their government? Nope.. wouldn't happen.

Hey... you in the USA. Try to go to any Canadian radio station website and 'listen live'....just try it. Our lovely government has blocked them all ( and I have one that I am head of their morning crew fan club) why? So, in return... Canada has blocked our stations. I know this is not like immigration... but it's funny how they restrict radio stations and let in illegals and ebola patients. Just sayin......

I checked tune-in radio, all stations from Canada seem to be working:

Check it out here:

http://tun.in/seyLJ

Quote
nomooingzone
yurble, this is a perfect example of what you're talking about: Obama immigration move expected to leave out millions of childless adults

I think it goes beyond the plan for amnesty, which merely perpetuates the existing biases in the immigration system at a grander scale. It's just one more form of bias against those who don't fit the limited definition of family. I find it hard to be especially outraged about this particular injustice (which, I notice, can only be made palatable by reference to a parental role) when to me it's just a part of the systematic institutionalized discrimination which goes unnoticed most of the time.

As long as some people are considered more valuable than others by the virtue of their reproductive status or where they were born, economic immigration and pro-natalist immigration policies will continue to be a problem.

I am delighted to hear and see that people are starting to see things for what they really are. It was not very long ago that anyone who questioned any immigration policy was quickly labeled a racist.

Politicians, buying votes with our money, there is nothing racist about it. Just pure politics. Courtesy of Ronald Reagan. I have to admit, what current president just did is much less compared to what Reagan did.

Even on NPR this morning they have mentioned that those without kids will not get any extensions. I am not sure when the discrimination against single, un-childed people will stop, but so far, it is clearly visible that both major parties favor parents.

Here is a good thing about all of this. At least for now, this is buying Dems votes. Maybe abortion rights will be respected?

Quote
Techie

Quote
starlady
Wonder what Canada would do if I trotted my butt into their country and tried to live there as an illegal? No visa, no papers, no job, trying to eeek off their government? Nope.. wouldn't happen.

Hey... you in the USA. Try to go to any Canadian radio station website and 'listen live'....just try it. Our lovely government has blocked them all ( and I have one that I am head of their morning crew fan club) why? So, in return... Canada has blocked our stations. I know this is not like immigration... but it's funny how they restrict radio stations and let in illegals and ebola patients. Just sayin......

I checked tune-in radio, all stations from Canada seem to be working:

Check it out here:

http://tun.in/seyLJ

Yes, Tunein is working. That's how I get the station now. I've been using that for a week and my hubby has listened through his phone for a while now. Station I listen to just stopped streaming to the US last week. However, it has a long lag time. Just WHY should the government block the live streem from the stations themselves? then I think that maybe Tunein wants to have a monopoly on the business? Who knows. I just wonder how long it will be before canada will go away from that site too. Kinda stupid IMO.

Obama cares more about illegals than he does about US citizens. The flood gates will now be open.

______________

- The human gene pool could use a little chlorine

Quote
starlady

Quote
Techie

Quote
starlady
Wonder what Canada would do if I trotted my butt into their country and tried to live there as an illegal? No visa, no papers, no job, trying to eeek off their government? Nope.. wouldn't happen.

Hey... you in the USA. Try to go to any Canadian radio station website and 'listen live'....just try it. Our lovely government has blocked them all ( and I have one that I am head of their morning crew fan club) why? So, in return... Canada has blocked our stations. I know this is not like immigration... but it's funny how they restrict radio stations and let in illegals and ebola patients. Just sayin......

I checked tune-in radio, all stations from Canada seem to be working:

Check it out here:

http://tun.in/seyLJ

Yes, Tunein is working. That's how I get the station now. I've been using that for a week and my hubby has listened through his phone for a while now. Station I listen to just stopped streaming to the US last week. However, it has a long lag time. Just WHY should the government block the live streem from the stations themselves? then I think that maybe Tunein wants to have a monopoly on the business? Who knows. I just wonder how long it will be before canada will go away from that site too. Kinda stupid IMO.

Yes, it is stupid but it probably has something to do with advertising dollars and free stations. Being that their advertisement may not be relevant to USA, Canadian stations, at the request of their advertisers are told to not stream "free" content to USA. They feel that since they pay for the show, why should someone who won't buy from advertisers get to enjoy the show?

It is not just radio, either. Can you get Canadian TV over here? Can you get Google Voice in Mexico? Things that are "free" are actually not free and those who pay for it become ridiculous.

Quote
M4P
Obama cares more about illegals than he does about US citizens. The flood gates will now be open.

Pretty much. It's going to screw over many legitimate people, including those that came here legally. Plus by doing this he's actually harming the illegals, because what they/he assume is racism, is actually a fat ball of festering resentment. By missing that point and assuming that it's due to the color of their skin instead, and not because they'd came illegally and are getting preferential treatment, he's helping to damn these folks for generations to come.


Plus, it also isn't going to help Mexico in the long run either, because there is no incentive for that country to improve. Most revolutions for change started with a disenfranchised group (often the poor) and once you remove that, things keep trucking along into hell.

I'm Canadian and right now I'm able to listen live to a radio station in Fargo ND. No errors or anything for me.

Part of me thinks that the US government doesn't want a permanent fix to the illegal immigration problem. Illegals make for cheap labor and the government gets to spend millions on border security stuff which benefits security companies.

It has to do with a very high tax that the US requested from the Canadian government... which they refused to pay. There is a huge penalty for stations which don't apply. The advertizing I got with the live feed was a US ad.. not Canadian. They applied the appropriate add to which ever IP address the feed was going to. It was all the US taxing Canada and Canada not wanting to pay the US. I am friends with the morning host on the station and also know the station manager and that's where I got the information..... and the advice to get Tunein. They are upset that they can't stream to the US. They have a lot of listeners down here. They are not allowed post anything about Tunein so they hope that their US listeners will figure it out. It's all about one country taxing another. The ads have nothing to do with it (according to my friend in the biz)

Quote
yurble

Quote
nomooingzone
yurble, this is a perfect example of what you're talking about: Obama immigration move expected to leave out millions of childless adults

I think it goes beyond the plan for amnesty, which merely perpetuates the existing biases in the immigration system at a grander scale. It's just one more form of bias against those who don't fit the limited definition of family. I find it hard to be especially outraged about this particular injustice (which, I notice, can only be made palatable by reference to a parental role) when to me it's just a part of the systematic institutionalized discrimination which goes unnoticed most of the time.

As long as some people are considered more valuable than others by the virtue of their reproductive status or where they were born, economic immigration and pro-natalist immigration policies will continue to be a problem.

The outrage is more like a cringe for me. I had to watch a democratic two term president of my country, who promised hope and change, smugly slap citizens in the face with this unjust unilateral decision and use breeder pleasing words and phrases we all know - the cruelty of ripping children from their parents arms-. Really? We know this is totally political, the flowery sappy language is embarrassing.

So I just feel worse about this than what goes on in every day life. It's a middle finger to legal immigrants and non-breeders, wrapped up in a gooey breeder pleasing package.

Muse on this -

If the USA were to completely close itself off -

They'd be looking to US to breed.

I really don't have a problem with this personally. In general. It certainly does bother me that child less adults may be left out. So - we should address that then and give them a chance, too.

Also - I suspect - the single and child less - the somewhat educated ones, anyway - are going about immigration in the 'legal way'.

Now consider this - everyone looks at Mexicans. Who's looking at everyone else?

Do you know how many EU and Russians come in here? Many under dubious reasons. Especially the Polish. And they drop the Anchor Babies too.

There are HORDES of opportunistic EU women doing this - literally like a plague of locusts. And no one says BOO about them. And they're doing the same damn thing, if not worse - because then they band together and drag ever more relatives here. Oh but they're white. Which is maybe why no one cares to call attention to *these people*.

There are SO MANY of these people here that biz's don't just put Habla Espanol on their advertising - they also have on there -
Mowimy Po Polsku. They wouldn't be doing that if there weren't SO MANY of these people coming in.

But no one talks about them.

The US has always had (at various times) open arms towards immigrants. Capitalism depends upon it.

So why should we be angry over Mexicans? What's the difference? They're hardworking people, good people, I have lots of Mexican friends and live in a mixed area of all types of people.

My relatives came from EU and the ME. They were 'legal' immigrants. Educated people who already had connections in the US and people to 'sponsor' them and help with the bureaucracy of it all. Which is mind bending.

And once they got here - they had kids too. And some did drag existent kids with them. What really makes us any different from a Mexican or a Pole?

Remember too - once someone is "legalized" - they can be taxed. That benefits ALL. Living here illegally and untaxed is - better?

I personally don't have a problem with Obama's decision on this. Remember too - Reagan did *the same thing* and let a helluva lot MORE in.

I'm kind of a 'one world' type of a person in general. And to reiterate - if we don't let in others - they will expect - and go to FORCING - US to breed.

And on the Mexicans - well - this really was their land to begin with. At least the SW. We stole large swaths from them. They used to live here - why can't they now?

Has to do with Oz- IMO it applies to MX also ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5f5TK04Hl8

Everyone deserves a chance. My relatives were able to come to the US. Who am I to say - no one else? That's just selfish. And if there are no incoming - you know who - they'll be looking at to 'breed the future' ~

Why are there so many societal rewards for shitting loaves but to suggest that drug addicts get sterilized for cash is "eugenics"? Presenting abortion as a viable plotline draws huge outrage, but shows like 'Jane the Virgin' and '19 Kids & Counting' are considered wholesome family entertainment?

I think Obummer would be criticized no matter which course he takes, but this law will definitely encourage people to have babies JUST so they can stay here legally. I don't really have a better solution but still think it's crap.

Quote
blondie
The outrage is more like a cringe for me. I had to watch a democratic two term president of my country, who promised hope and change, smugly slap citizens in the face with this unjust unilateral decision and use breeder pleasing words and phrases we all know - the cruelty of ripping children from their parents arms-. Really? We know this is totally political, the flowery sappy language is embarrassing.

So I just feel worse about this than what goes on in every day life. It's a middle finger to legal immigrants and non-breeders, wrapped up in a gooey breeder pleasing package.

I don't live in the US and I never bought the rhetoric that this corporate slave wearing the Democrat brand would offer "hope" and "change", so I don't feel any betrayal. It's the same old same old.

But congratulations to Vermont for taking the first step toward getting Citizens United overturned, maybe someday the US will be a democracy.


I have sympathy for economic migrants, who are, after all, only making a personally economically rational decisions without regard for the big picture - like most of us. Of course I wish that the root causes of economic migration (economic disparity) would be addressed, which can only be done in conjunction with considering sustainable population. The effects of overpopulation on wages can clearly be seen (but I think being against immigration misses the point - too many people is the issue, whether they are imported or home-grown), as can the impact on the environment.

I don't see it as "us" (citizens and legal immigrants) versus "them" (illegal immigrants); breeders of all nationalities and those who promote natalism are the ones forcing us into this resource struggle. If there were fewer people and we could get rid of the greedy scumbags, there'd be enough for everyone and nobody would care what your country of origin was. So I find pandering to breeders in any fashion disgusting, and for that reason this policy is bad. It rewards exactly the people who are part of the problem at the expense of those who are merely caught up in economic circumstances out of their control.

I would like to have seen Obama grant amnesty to all those (regardless of famblee status) who have been in the US a certain amount of time. If you are going to sort out your immigration issues, then a necessary part of that is ensuring that the people you have got in the country are legalized and their status is protected.

I'm a Brit and we have UKIP over here who can't decide whether they want to send people back or let them stay and just not let any more in, or whether it's EU migrants who are the problem or non-EU ones and how do you define whether someone will be a "drain" on society or not when they enter at the border. It's a complete mess.

One thing I do know is that famblees are more likely to use more services and welfare than singles or childless couples. I would prefer to have a system more like Australia's (though without the detention centres, institutionalized racism or leaving people to drown at sea/sinking their ships, obviously) where if you have dependents, you have to prove you can afford to support them.

I am supportive of open borders within the EU, mainly because if the rightwing nutters get in here, I want to be able to up sticks and leave sharpish without too much hassle, but also, as a principle - if you have free trading for corporations, you should have free movement of people. You can't have one and outlaw the other - corporations should not get privilege over people (although I realise that they do, in many contexts). But, people are coming over here and claiming welfare when they land, virtually. That needs to be stopped - there should be a waiting period before being able to claim any sort of benefits, except under exceptional circumstances (people who are rescued from trafficking, human slavery, abusive "employers" etc).

Quote
yummynotmummy
I am supportive of open borders within the EU, mainly because if the rightwing nutters get in here, I want to be able to up sticks and leave sharpish without too much hassle, but also, as a principle - if you have free trading for corporations, you should have free movement of people. You can't have one and outlaw the other - corporations should not get privilege over people (although I realise that they do, in many contexts). But, people are coming over here and claiming welfare when they land, virtually. That needs to be stopped - there should be a waiting period before being able to claim any sort of benefits, except under exceptional circumstances (people who are rescued from trafficking, human slavery, abusive "employers" etc).

Is that really happening? I live in the EU, though not in the UK and I thought it was standard policy that the member state that the individual is from must provide welfare unless the person has established themselves in the other country (generally, by working there for some period of time before becoming jobless). You can't just move somewhere to claim better benefits, the move has to have been for other reasons.

Or are you talking about benefits other than unemployment, such as childcare vouchers, reduced transit for students, etc?

New migrants from the EU are eligible for income based benefits, not contribution-based. So yeah, tax credits, child benefit (sometimes being used to claim for children who are actually being raised in the home country) and income-based jobseekers allowance for the unemployed.

Contribution based unemployment and sickness benefits rely on a certain amount of National Insurance contributions, so they cannot claim those.

I have less of an issue with them claiming in-work benefits like tax credits or housing benefit top-ups; if they are working, then that's fair enough, they should get what other working people get. But they should not get child benefit, or unemployment - there should be a longer qualifying period, IMO.

Quote
Zzelda
So why should we be angry over Mexicans? What's the difference? They're hardworking people, good people, I have lots of Mexican friends and live in a mixed area of all types of people.

My relatives came from EU and the ME. They were 'legal' immigrants. Educated people who already had connections in the US and people to 'sponsor' them and help with the bureaucracy of it all. Which is mind bending.

And once they got here - they had kids too. And some did drag existent kids with them. What really makes us any different from a Mexican or a Pole?

I don't think people, generally, are prejudiced or angry that Mexicans want to come here. For some I suppose it's a visceral hatred of anything non-white, but I don't think most people have that kind of prejudice in their hearts.

The problem is that modern society has far more social safety nets than what we had during the great migration period of the early 20th century.

We've got a few thoroughly educated professionals coming here from India, for example. But for the most part, what we're seeing come across the border now is poor, desperate people.

Quote
Zzelda
Remember too - once someone is "legalized" - they can be taxed. That benefits ALL. Living here illegally and untaxed is - better?

What these people are taking out of the system is far more than what they're putting in. Remember, their income is so low that they're basically paying no personal income tax. On top of that, they'll be expecting Social Security down the line. And many qualify for food stamps, medical care, and other "freebies" (which ARE NOT free) right now.

And who is to say that they're paying taxes? If I'm running a farm, I'd rather pay someone $5/hr. under the table to pick lettuce than to put them on the books and worry about the immigration authorities, IRS, etc. etc. etc.

Quote
Zzelda
And on the Mexicans - well - this really was their land to begin with. At least the SW. We stole large swaths from them. They used to live here - why can't they now?

They can, and do. It's not like they were completely exiled out of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, etc. Many people of Mexican descent are US citizens.

Quote
Zzelda
Everyone deserves a chance. My relatives were able to come to the US. Who am I to say - no one else? That's just selfish. And if there are no incoming - you know who - they'll be looking at to 'breed the future' ~

Your relatives came to the US during a time when there was an understanding that they would have to do for themselves and there were no social safety nets. We need to move away from this notion that we can save everyone. World poverty isn't something we can conquer. Reduction of breeding, and not immigration, is the best way to combat it.

This is a good video which I think adds to the conversation:

Immigration and World Poverty